Kerala High Court
Pushpasree vs The District Collector on 19 December, 2025
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 1
2025:KER:98634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34040 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
PUSHPASREE,AGED 56 YEARS
W/O KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, AGED 56 YEARS,
PRARTHANA, 101, SANTHITHEERAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
CHEVAYUR P.O., KOZHIKODE, 673017.
BY ADV SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, YYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR 680003.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680003.
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
FOR GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
GURUVAYUR. 680101.
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, GURUVAYUR. 680101.
ADDL.R5 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033
IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT AS
PER ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN IA NO.3 OF 2024.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 2
2025:KER:98634
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.R1(a), P25 and P28 orders and also for a consequential direction to take up the application submitted by the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 [for short, 'the KLU order'] and to grant permission to the petitioner to use her property for any other purpose, notwithstanding Ext.P25.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 60.70 Ares (150 cents) of land comprised in Survey Nos.143/1 and 143/2 of Guruvayur Village in Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. The petitioner has purchased the said property by way of three sale deeds, which are produced as Exts.P1 to P3. After purchase, mutation was effected and tax was remitted in the name of the petitioner as evident from Ext.P4. The petitioner submits that the property is a pucca dry land and that there are around 150 coconut trees in the property, all of them are aged either 35 or 40 years old and WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 3 2025:KER:98634 these trees were in existence before 04.07.1967, the date of coming into force of the KLU order.
3. The petitioner would contend that the above factual position conclusively shows that the properties had been reclaimed long before 12.08.2008, the date on which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for short, 'the Act, 2008'] came into force. The petitioner submits that there is no paddy cultivation either in this property or in the near vicinity for the last several decades and that her property is surrounded by several commercial and residential buildings and comes within the jurisdiction of the Guruvayur Municipality, adjacent to the famous temple.
4. As early as on 14.06.2006, the petitioner preferred an application bearing No.B4-25574/2006 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order seeking permission to convert the property into plots and to reclaim the same. The 2 nd respondent obtained a report from the Principal Agricultural Officer as well as the Tahsildar, Chavakkad, regarding the status of the land. The Principal Agricultural Officer, as early as on 11.10.2006, submitted Ext.P5 report pointing out that there are around 100 coconut trees aged about 30 to 40 years. Though the said report was forwarded to the office of the 1 st respondent, no orders have WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 4 2025:KER:98634 been passed on the said application. When the Data Bank was prepared, the property was included with an entry that it was reclaimed 30 years back, as evident from Ext.P6 copy of the relevant pages of the Data Bank. The petitioner submits that, subsequently, the property has been removed from the Data Bank also. Since no orders were passed on the KLU permission application preferred by the petitioner in 2006, she submitted yet another application before the 1 st respondent seeking permission under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order on 01.09.2012, as evident from Ext.P7. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Tahsildar seeking correction of the Revenue Records, which was rejected as per Ext.P10. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No.12890 of 2013 and the same was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the District Collector, Thrissur, seeking permission under the KLU order. Thereupon, Ext.P12 representation was filed. So as of now, there are three applications pending before the 1st respondent-District Collector, seeking permission under the KLU order; application dated 14.06.2006 bearing file No.B4- 25574/2006, in which Ext.P5 report is filed, Ext.P7 application dated 01.09.2012 and Ext.P12 request dated 07.01.2014. The WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 5 2025:KER:98634 petitioner would submit that after the submission of Ext.P12 application, Exts.P13 and P14 reports were called for. The petitioner would submit that a perusal of Exts.P13 and P14 reports would reveal that there are 64 coconut trees, which are 45 years old and there are several other trees also in the property. Similar report was submitted as per Ext.P14 by the Agricultural Officer also. Without taking a decision in the matter, the District Collector referred the matter to the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner, by Ext.P16 order, relegated the matter back to the District Collector for taking a decision. While so, as advised by the officials of the 1st respondent, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 9 as provided under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which was rejected vide Ext.P22 order by the 2 nd respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P22, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected as per Ext.P25. The petitioner would contend that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, the KLU permission application submitted by the petitioner as early as on 07.04.2006 was rejected by Ext.R1(a) order and the appeal filed against the same was also rejected by the Land Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P28 and on coming to know WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 6 2025:KER:98634 about the same, the writ petition was amended and incorporated a challenge against the said orders also. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent, wherein it is contended that the impugned orders were issued in accordance with law, after verifying the records and the KLU permission application submitted by the petitioner on 07.04.2006 has already been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) and the appeal preferred against the same before the Land Revenue Commissioner has been rejected by Ext.P28 order. It was further submitted that by the impugned order, the right of the petitioner to make necessary application as per the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the Rules thereto has not been foreclosed and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.
6. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
7. Admittedly, an application as per the KLU order has already been submitted by the petitioner as early as on 14.06.2006 [the date of application is stated as 07.04.2006 in Ext.R1(a) order]. Based on the said application, a report was called for from the Principal Agricultural Officer, Thrissur, and WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 7 2025:KER:98634 Ext.P5 report was submitted on 1.10.2006, wherein it is categorically found that there are around 100 coconut trees, which are aged 30 to 40 years old. Similar reports were also submitted by the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer subsequently as per Exts.P13 and P14, wherein also the presence of coconut trees aged more than 30 years in the property are noted. It is seen that the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2006 has been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) order, with a one-line order without assigning any reasons, simply stating that the application has been rejected. Ext.P28 is the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner in the appeal preferred against the same. The appeal has been rejected taking a stand that the application ought to have been filed before the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in the Basic Tax Register was rejected by the District Collector vide Ext.P25 stating that necessary applications could be submitted in Form 7 invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, 2008. It is worthwhile to note that the application preferred by the petitioner as early as in the year 2006 has been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) by a one-line order, without assigning any reasons. The case of the petitioner that two other WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 8 2025:KER:98634 applications are pending consideration as per the provisions of the KLU order, ie.Ext.P7 application dated 01.09.2012 and Ext.P12 request dated 07.01.2014. It is true that the petitioner had, after submission of the request for permission under the KLU order, approached the authorities filing various other applications including application in Form No.9 and also application before the Tahsildar for change in the nature of the land in the BTR based on the decision of this Court in Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333), but those applications were rejected. But the fact remains that a KLU permission application was filed as early as in 2006. Subsequent KLU permission applications are dated 01.09.2012 and 07.01.2014, which are much before Section 27(1) was incorporated in the Statute Book. A perusal of Ext.R1(a) order would reveal that the KLU permission application has been rejected without assigning any reason at all. Even the appeal filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner has been rejected without any valid reason, as per Ext.P28.
8. A Full Bench of this Court, in Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala (2024 (6) KHC 187) while considering the effect of an application under the KLU order, which is pending before the coming into force of Section 27(1) in the Statute Book, ie. WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 9
2025:KER:98634 before 30.12.2017, has categorically held that the application filed prior to 30.12.2017 will have to be considered for passing orders under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order. In the light of the categoric declaration by the Full Bench of this Court in Mukthar Ali [supra], I am of the view that the petitioner need not be relegated to undergo the procedure as contemplated in Section 27(a) inasmuch as an application was filed by the petitioner as early as in 2006, which has been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) and that two other subsequent applications, ie.Exts.P7 and P12, are also pending consideration, which were also filed much before the coming into force of Section 27(a) in the Statute Book.
9. In the light of the above, I am of the view that in spite of the rejection order in other proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the 1st respondent-District Collector, shall consider the applications submitted by the petitioner seeking permission under the KLU order. As already found, the original application submitted by the petitioner in 2006 has been rejected as per Ext.R1(a) without assigning any reason and the appeal was also dismissed as per Ext.P28 without any valid reason.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 10
2025:KER:98634
(i) Ext.R1(a) order as well as Exts.P25 and P28 orders are set aside.
(ii) There will be a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for permission under the KLU order dated 07.04.2006, which led to issuance of Ext.R1(a) order, in the light of Ext.P5 report of the Principal Agricultural Officer dated 11.10.2006 and also Exts.P13 to P14 reports and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1 st respondent within the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sp/10/12/2025 WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 11 2025:KER:98634 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 34040 OF 2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1811 OF 1994 DATED 26-10-94 OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1949 OF 1994 DATED 15-11-94. OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2084 OF 1994 DATED 09-12-94 OF S.R.O.KOTTAPPADY.
Exhibit P4 :TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
21-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, GURUVAYUR VILLAGE.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11-10-2006
OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01- 09-2012 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER, 1967.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER WHICH CONTAINS THE POSTAL RECEIPT ACCOMPANYING EXHIBIT P-7 APPLICATION.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-02- 2013 IN W.P. (C) NO.26577 OF 2012.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29-
04-2013 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-11-
2013 IN W.P. (C) NO.12890 OF 2013.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07-01-2014 SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-02-2014
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER THROUGH THE TAHSILDAR.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-02-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B11-3372/2014 DATED 21-03-2014.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. LR(A)4- 17738/2014/LD DATED 07-11-2014.
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 12
2025:KER:98634 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29-04-2017 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 02-09-2020.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09- 11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE APPLICATION DATED 09- 11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06-09-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-12-2021.
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREFERRED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P. (C)
NO.2007/2022 DATED NIL.
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-04-
2022 IN W.P. (C) NO.2007 OF 2022.
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DCTSR/394/2022/B3
DATED 27-09-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P26 True copy of the communication
No.19145/NCA3/11/Agriculture dated 12-
09-2012 issued by the Agricultural
Production Commissioner
Exhibit P27 True copy of the building permit dated
3-12-2014
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY LAND
REVENUE COMMISSIONER ON 09.06.2011
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/10/2006
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/5/2011
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE THRISSUR Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C-1726/11 DATED 3/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 3/12/2014 WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 13 2025:KER:98634 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the order No.B1-25574/2006 dated 06-12-2006 ExhibitR1(b) True copy of the circular No.LRA4- 8808/2012 dated 19.04.2013